Navigating Consent Searches: When Impatience Isnt Enough to Withdraw Consent

Abstract

[Name] According to Samaha (255), consent searches are searches where individuals give the officer permission to search them and their personal belongings without warrants or probable cause. A consent search proves very easy for officers as they do not engage in the tiring process of getting warrants before a search. To this effect, consent searches remain convenient and most preferred means of gaining access to a victim in person and items separate from the person in a short time. However, some officers take advantage of the consent searches privilege, making the consenting persons feel uncomfortable and, to some extent, angry. Our current case scenario is an excellent example of an experience that spells discomfort, anger, and dissatisfaction to the person who consented and allowed the officer to conduct a search on him, assuming he was his target. However, one can argue that the victim did not use the right words to show a direct intent to withdraw the consent. On the contrary, the guy asked the officer whether he was through or how long the search would take. The victim told the officer he would be late for home the second time. Such statements only express the victims’ level of impatience which is contrary to the direct withdrawal intent. Impatience is not sufficient to terminate a consent; thus, the officer had the right to continue the search (Samaha, 268). To this effect, the suspect should have used an unequivocal act or statement that directly communicates the intent to withdraw, like stop the search now. Work Cited Samaha, Joel. "Criminal Procedure Companion CD-ROM." (2005).